Rainbow Academy!Follow

gbaji wouldn't know John Locke if he bit him on the ***. I actually do hold to many of the precept of enlightenment era liberalism, and I believe that a right to marry is an obvious extension of inherent natural rights. And in that sense, we do have a right to marry by finding a willing member of the clergy.

What we're discussing, though, is a civil marriage. A legally defined contract that lays out a set of social and financial structures governing a legal quasi-entity (the married couple). This contract places certain limitations on the parties (mostly in the terms of severing the agreement) and guarantees them certain powers with one another (rights of inheritance, power of attorney in certain situations, etc). The application of a one-man-one-woman is artificial to the nature of this contract. The contract does not require a romantic relationship or procreation to remain valid.

So, given that this legal structure exists and that its provisions are designed to ease the management of a household by two adults, it is obvious that many pairings of adults would benefit from access to becoming party to such a contract. Yet the law in most parts of our country prohibits persons of the same sex from entering such a contract, because it is found unsavory by some religious people, and makes other people uncomfortable.

Dislike or discomfort are not valid grounds on which to deny people equal treatment under the law.

You do realize that this is simply your opinion, and not based in fact whatsoever, right?

I'm still waiting for you to tell us when you "chose" to be a hetero.

You can't read for ****.

So you saw her in the bikini and decided to get a stiffy?

You do realize that sexual orientation isn't about who you are sleeping with, but who you are attracted to, right?

I never chose to be attracted to men. I never decided to start getting weak in the knees and get butterflies in my tummy whenever a cute guy walked by and smiled at me. How do you choose to have a physical reaction to something?

And at that point you said to yourself, "Maybe I don't want men sexually after all"?

At what point did you choose to be heterosexual instead of homosexual?

He hasn't an answer. :/

'kay, I'm just saying that, as far as I can remember, that is his argument.



Sure, we can control our behaviors. One doesn't have to **** dudes in the ***. One doesn't have to have sex with anyone for that matter. Controlling a behavior like sexual relations is fairly a fairly simple action, even if it does require some discipline. That really doesn't have anything to do with one's sexual preference though. It's not like I eat food because my body has become accustomed to it through various social experiences; I eat it because my body has a physical urge to do so. I don't control the urges of my body; I can only either endorse or deny them.

Preference is simply one of those natural urges.

Furthermore, even if sexual preference was a choice, or if we decide to cash out choice as defined in some way that makes sexual preference so, I don't see why I lose anything here. The argument that, because sexual preference is a choice, one is justified in holding gays accountable for the evil behavior in question does not merely fail in case sexual preference is not, in fact, a choice. It also fails because the behavior is not evil at all.

It's like vilifying someone for choosing to eat potatoes for lunch instead of meat, and it is because of this reason that your are bigoted, namely, that you inexplicably hate the practice of eating potatoes (homosexuality) when that decision has absolutely nothing to do with your liberties and your decision to abstain from potatoes (homosexuality).


Please stop further scaring me away from *****. I don't want to enjoy damn tobacco crotch :(

Anna does make an excellent point. The nature of homosexuality should not be the focus of the debate. It is a question of equal rights and equal protection under the law.

That's been the story throughout this entire thread.